Various kinds of equipment are known in the art. Essentially all equipment is subject to failure or partially-failed operational states. In general, simpler mechanisms (i.e., those with few parts and/or operational states) are easier to analyze and diagnose when such a condition arises. In many cases, however, the equipment in question can pose formidable challenges to fault-causation identification. For example, some equipment is comprised of thousands (or tens of thousands) of individual components and can further comprise a complicated mixture of mechanical, electrical, electromechanical, chemical, and software-based elements. While it can sometimes be readily ascertained that a fault has occurred with such equipment, identifying the cause of such a fault can be quite difficult (and may require highly trained on-site experts, expensive diagnostic equipment, and considerable down-time for the equipment being studied).
One simple approach to this problem essentially entails a reactive forensic review of a present state of a piece of equipment at or subsequent to the time of failure. That is, trained (or untrained) individuals exam various aspects, conditions, and states of the equipment and from this review try and glean a possible cause for the acknowledged failure. Such an approach, while successful in some settings, becomes increasingly less effective and acceptable as the complexity of the equipment increases. Not only can such a review be highly time consuming but may also fail in its primary purpose—to reliably identify a root cause (or causes) of a given fault.
Another approach provides for ongoing recordation of one or more data points regarding operation of the equipment. For example, a comprehensive record of these data points may be maintained during operation of the equipment being monitored. This approach, of course, can require massive amounts of memory and can further entail considerable time and effort to interpret due, at least in part, to the large amounts of data (much of which is likely irrelevant to the cause being sought) generated by this approach.
The so-called black box recorder on modern aircraft represents another approach. By this tactic, only a certain amount of data, over time, is captured. For example, in many cases data older than a thirty minute window is discarded on a first-in/first-out basis. In the black box of an aircraft, for example, the recording process concludes in the event of a catastrophic failure. This yields a reduced amount of data that leads up to the fault of interest and that will hopefully include sufficient information to aid in identifying the cause of the fault. For some purposes this approach represents a viable strategy. In other settings, however, this approach can be less than satisfactory.
In a modern manufacturing facility, for example, even a considerable fault that brings the equipment in question to a halt rarely results in utter subsequent inoperability. Instead, a jammed mechanism, for example, can be cleared and the equipment restarted. To the extent that such jamming may recur from time to time can be economically vexing and require an explanation and a solution, but, again, the equipment is nevertheless able to serve its intended purpose at least in a degraded fashion. Unfortunately, prior techniques for recording data in such a setting often provide insufficient information to support a useful cause analysis in such a setting. The data itself may be somewhat (or wholly) ambiguous with respect to cause and effect. In short, known data gathering techniques can provide too little useful (or too much irrelevant) information and, by its very nature, can be ill-suited for application in non-catastrophic equipment failure settings.
Skilled artisans will appreciate that elements in the figures are illustrated for simplicity and clarity and have not necessarily been drawn to scale. For example, the dimensions of some of the elements in the figures may be exaggerated relative to other elements to help to improve understanding of various embodiments of the present invention. Also, common but well-understood elements that are useful or necessary in a commercially feasible embodiment are often not depicted in order to facilitate a less obstructed view of these various embodiments of the present invention. It will also be understood that the terms and expressions used herein have the ordinary meaning as is usually accorded to such terms and expressions by those skilled in the corresponding respective areas of inquiry and study except where other specific meanings have otherwise been set forth herein.